Facts of the case

Jesse James Gilbert was charged with armed robbery and the murder of a police officer in
Alhambra, California. Gilbert refused to answer questions about the robbery charge without the
advice of counsel, but later answered questions about a robbery in which the robber, allegedly
Gilbert, used a handwritten note demanding the money. He gave the police handwriting
exemplars, which were later admitted into evidence. The police also had eyewitnesses identify
Gilbert in a line-up that was conducted without notice to his counsel. During the trial, several
witnesses identified Gilbert in the courtroom as being a part of multiple robberies, including the
Alhambra robbery. No distinction was made as to whether the in-court identifications were
independent of the illegal line-ups that occurred before the trial. The jury rendered a guilty
verdict and imposed the death penalty. The California Supreme Court affirmed. 
Question
(1) Does taking of handwriting exemplars violate the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-
incrimination?
(2) Are in-court identifications unconstitutional if there was no determination of whether they
were influenced by an illegal lineup procedure? 
Conclusion

No, yes. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. delivered the opinion of the 6-3 majority. The Court held
that taking the handwriting exemplars was constitutional. While the Fifth Amendment protects
against self-incrimination, a handwriting exemplar simply identifies a physical characteristic and
is therefore outside of its protection. Also, taking exemplars without counsel present would not
affect the defendant’s right to a fair trial. The Court held that the admission of the in-court
identifications without determining them to be impartial violates the Constitution. Since the
identification line-up was the result of an illegal procedure, the state must establish that the in-
court identifications are independent of those conducted illegally. 
Justice Hugo L. Black delivered an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part in which he
argued that the admission of the writing exemplars violated Gilbert’s constitutional rights
because his counsel was not present at the time this evidence was obtained. In his separate
opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, Justice William O. Douglas wrote that the
general search for evidence did not violate the Constitution.
Justice Byron R. White wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that there was no need to
establish that the in-court identifications were independent from the illegal identification line-
up. Justice John M. Harlan and Justice Potter Stewart joined in the dissenting opinion.